,No ;nCE

I

< LA ~HESE ~ ETE ":,' MICROFILMEE TELLEQUE

,,~ " i NDUS L'AVQN S REQUE

B!bllottMIquenstiP,nate.du Canads_

O/r.~tion du catlllogagl .",C!ivlslon de~th!lses ca,nldl~~nes

' ,'NL-339( 3I77)

-.THIS DISSERTATION ,

HAS BEEN MICROFILMED 'EXACTLY AS RECEIVED

I

Previously 'COPyrl g ~ ted malerials (jou rn~"I , ~ rt i c l e~,published tests, atc,) are not.f,i,lmed.

1+I National ~Ibrary of C~ "ada:.g:~~fa~'Tgh:;~~VIslO';Ottawa,Canad~ •K1AON4 'b

Aeproduction In lullori'n p~ rt 01thistil";",IsgOVe'rnedby the Canadian Copyright Act, A.S.C. ,1970 , c. C-30.

. Please read the authorizationforms whiChaccompanythlst hesil ,

}(/-

:,1~

"c "OJ .:. --.. ,..,

'. c i·, 1

~'l:'

, A M~etr ' S . ~e~iS . ,B~t.~ed ~~ ,,,t:'!emoria.1 Un~ver8ity .o f .Ne":'fQundl and

··•••.·. ·nr ·~Hr:::I~~:ON~J;I::=:;:~Lt~Is~ ''. ".: .< ,~: : ...,:': ' ..:' ,.. < ." ..:,-.: ." .... :./ ':.:< . . .'

;;.:.::'f- •...1 (£:

···•·..,,2:: /','. .»>,

r: . .,; -.-. ,

, €~~iii~";i~end-deceft;; ' · ,: : Chris t~e . aJld.'GeisJl9.70} ha'X!:' ~ev,';!lo~d :a_set ,.

,O~ 'SC~le~ ( Mach 'I V and~:~Ef II~c~ .~) that ~i8tin~8h betw~n .., " iii, · ,

) those who endorse _MaCh ave:ilian ide~18 : .("ligh Machal and , " ~

those Who agree more wi t~ventionai,...lrirality (low Macha).I " I ' " " -

, The present study date !ned hi.gh a~d .J,ow Machiavellil\ ns 1" '; " ·:';"4: " -,' .:. ' -'. " . ' . . . >...·· . ,· >1 '-.-' , " .. ': ".' "" '. ' ... , , ",'; .,'.. - " , '. ,: .. ":", '.,: ,. : ~~nki:ng ,Of . · ,th~ , .~a~~~ :~nes? ,.{~8.t9.:~k_eaCh . S .,ya,l u4 ,s ur.'e}', ',.;',:' : :" ."

~E,~:::~'~::±:~s:tr, " ' "o. thi.·.~e"nd . qUe.tion·ce.t"r;" ·tthe.di..;nal!'d.. cheat";g.c.~~e; , ..n~ q thIe di~;;;n.~c; · ,ub~ok;~nt1y 'ff';~t~thehigh a~~ lO~ Ma~hi~veiiiari~;· r~in_g~_ " ~~. ~h·e_ :-valu~ . ~~.~~ty~. - - ~~~a'c~ , , ( 19.~~ )'. s·~~,~~~. :0a;:~~lu.e~ : .~~~ ;t; ,. ,d~>ith · -.,j '

.•.r:::.::":~:d:~:'~: ::.dt~t:::\::t::·:7:~':u:::~t~'~.". :~::::a;.·.:::~~:~t ::;:i:;c:~;e:::,:::7.::~~,t

tive.'llIOde~ of c~:mdu~t· or -,en~ _state~ 'of exlsten~en . . -

~~:~~.~~:" : ;~968 ; ' . '~ ~ .}60-}..·:·!I~~.~~:6h · ~,~~~.b~i~~~~ : ·.-H:~,~~. ; t_~,

· ,i

.v.

"~7~~";";, b~,*f~;~~~2'1~{:~:i,:,,j!, ···· · ·· · ·· · ··.

..'... .'-'" .' "

- 3- ·

.': / .:,j' ... ~ '.:. "' :,' ' , ,~ i.~.c,e. ,~r. :.~~~ d6, ~n~o,~~, '. ~:~f.t~~~~ :~~a~',;~.~~~~~!.:~. '.:;.aq~.iN! .~ ',C~~'":~,~tional lIIOrdity,,~ , hiqh : ,~ChS':~,"7d ~',. ,expe~~~d

.' e- '~' : - : ' ~ci ~a~ ~.~~ , V.~,~~~ " Hdn,~~.t< ~~~f~~e~ti~:." ~r;:~o·~ .~C~~~~,.,:.;.. ' ~',;": '

H~,V:~t);[ :i~X:~~$c~f~Ji)~;~'

'?IF'"1....:..~.•.':' ::/J

"',.~. ' ~('.~ "~f;~;;;;;~r;'~'~j~:~;r::~~~;:i?;'i,.•;i ":" :~::~:;~S':~;ft"{;1iCC;"'G?{, ,~~ ' : " \. " . -. ..:..

'>..;:.i::' ...' ,. ·:n+h_~~ :'~~'~~~+_~.~ · :~.ho~.~· ber:·~~~~~. :.i~ ": .~~~.~ :jf~· .bcCaU.~e'the ,18 values are' rank ,order~ ~nto : 18 . slots '; .~ .

" ~ ..:' ~~~~~~_, ~t_ ~l!sume.• _~.n. .e.qu~.~s.~~T':~,,~~:~a~~e

. ~.~~.' ,' ; \: ' .

. -5-

Concerning'Milichiavellianism and dissonance , christie

and G~~S ci1;e a study :by Bogart, Geis, Levy and 21mbardo

( 1.9~) t~at ~s concerned IWi th the dissonance effec~s

.'

v ·,- 6-

Lows w~ cheated in the high d issona nce

c ondition wi t h the unattractive partners pre-

vi~lng i ow ext4ttsic justification lowered, their

en~orl!le;me~t 'of ' conventional morality: th08ewho

cOJllpl ied i n the ' l ow' dissonance c ondi ti on with

' +:o,v ~ the 'attractive partnJr pJovidi~g mor~ ,j u s tif i c a -. tion ' i ncreased their endor'semE!nt (Ch r ls t i e a nd

. Ge t .!!. 1 970 , ' p •. 216) . .

Boga rt 'et ' a'i ~ . ( 19 70.) found °no s1gnifi'tant ' attitu~ ',ch a nge

f o;r the high Mac~s • . H~ver; . ~he high'Ma"Chs 'd;! d s1:tow at e nden c y t o ' lower their Mach s c o r e s aft.er chea ting i n theo .

, l OW" justification condition.

Overa~l ~ high Machs ~id no t ch eat nore ofte~' than low

Christie and Geis (1970) interpret these 'r e s u l t s as

indi~ting that h i gh ' Machi'avellians do not exper ience the

typical dissonance eeeceacee , '!'hese f i n ding s have received

some su pport f rom more recent research. Burgoon . Miller and

Tubbs (1 971) pla ced. h Igh and l ?w Machs in a counter aecte u-

dina l advocacy .s itu a tion and f ound the t .yp i c a l dis sopi\f1Ce

r eactions for 1 9'" but not for h i gh Machs .

chd.st;ie and Geis s~ate that since "h i gh Macha . are ' not

emot iona l l y i nvol ve d in t heir cognitions , no d,tssonance ' i s

-:-7-

. produc ed when two confl,1..cting o r dissonant coqni t i on a are

-p res e nt . However , it is pos s ible that no d issonant or co n-

flict ing ,c ogn i t i ons were present, for _t h e h i gh Machs who

chea ted in .t he Bogart. e t e L, (1 97 0) s tU d y . Sinc~ 'a hig~. .

Mach d oes not have t.h e eeee attitudes toward con vention al. ., morality t.hat· t.he low Mach haa, ,h i gh Machs 'wh~ cheat. do not

necessa~ily, ha~ two confl+c-:~~g. ·: -C~,~tions , agai~s t chea.t.ing.,· 1.f ,>, t his i s 't h e ca~~ , a , dis~o'~nce;';produc'1ng situat'ipn 'f o r ' 'a

.~i~~ Mach '~~~d be one 'j~ wh i ch -' the'r~ is a ~i~h ' ~us tifi~a':'ti~nfo.~ c~e'ating ; '~,bi:i,t ' ~~e ; hi~~ ' ~'~~9~'S "n o t - Ch~at., ' I~ .

would se em the~-, -'t ha t low ~achB ;'Wh Q',Che a t tn -~ , lOW jus u n :-

cation c on dition (high dissonance) w6ul~ loWe r '..t heir ,r anking

f or ho ne S1:Y, while high Mach s wh o dO~ 'no 1:'- cheilt i n a high

justification~ ( ~ high dis~ona:nce>- c ondition woul d rais,e

t hei r rankinq '61' Hon e sty . ·

The re ,a r e , ' howe ver , two ' basic ques t ions tha t these ,

a s s ump t i ons r aise . The ~irst fs whether or not dissonan ce '

can ~ .r e dUCed th,ough a change .i n -a va ,11 rank on ' t h e Va.l.u G

Survey. - Past res earch wi th ~eati!'J.g an d the r anking 'of t he~ . , !I .

v~lue Honesty (Homant and Ro~eae'h , ,1970 ) woul d s eem to

indi cate t~at changi n g the ra~ing fo r ' Ron -es t y ~ dissona~ce .

i~ pos~ible . Homant and Roke ach (19 70 ) employed , t wo l evels

of moti vation f o:r chea t.ing an d t wo l ev els of \ he " sal ience of

the value ' ho nesty . Motivation - was _va r ied ,by d ecreasing 't h e .. . "number of problems · neceaeexy to r eceive a ce_rtain ~onetary

r eward. Salien c e ~or honee cy wa s varied by ,the' s tres s placed

high s'aHence: high mo'tivation, low .sdien~e : l ow

-~-

on the value when it was read aloud , with the other veauee •

In ~the high salience condition.' hone:ty was directl~

defined as not cheatin~ in c1~ss. A ~roup of 193 sixth

graders wepe divided into 'f ou r groups : high motivation,!r

~otivation . low . s~lience,;. 'l ow , llI~tivation • .hi9hi ·sa1ien~e .

The children were then ,given ,a ;'~et ~~f probi8IM ' to .ec, .

on W~;eh" they were ~ive~ am~~- oppor~~ity: to"che~t - a"sthe e~rime~t,er ~~r~d hi~ ..back' as ":~e~tE: . ~ha-~ ' ~he .

Childr~n thOU9~t _ were the corre~t~~~rs_01 .~he)lOard.

A few day!! later, a post· measure of the ch~ldren'e values

was taken t.c eee if the cheaters , t~e who had copied

and tU~ed in the ~ong answer, shOwed the dissonance

reaction of devaluating honesty .~ . ,

J Homand a~ Rokeach found tha: , i~ .t h e high eali~nc'e,;:lOw motivation cond~tion, the cheating subjects ~l!I ignificahtly !.lowered their ve.Lue fo.r ~n:esty . :sev~r~l eXPlan~t!ions forthe negative rel'lulte ' ~n the other .1;h r ee groups are pos~i1~~e•

. /. . . ' . . . .First 'o f all, the hig'h~sa~~ence. low motiv~tion condition '

would be ' expected to produce more 'dissonanCe from cheating

than the'ot~r .c ond i t i on's,.; ~econdl~, it is poshb~~hatdissonance- was e liminated .in rnothermanner (i.e.,

devaluatio? of the exPeriment!erl. 'nally, .-the ,che a ting

manipUlation may not have been dissonanc,?-producing. for many '

of the children• . SOIRant a~d Rokeach informed the children. ' . ~ -', ' . ~that the answers written on the board were incorrect and

..

- 9 - .

. " , - . , .' ,acc01pP;Lish ed i n the pr e s e nt study by Using a .prccedure that

" I !Q> " " , , ' , ,. •

, .Ma chs cheated d ifferentially 'wit.h· many mor e high MacllS •

c heati ng in t he ' h i gh just1;fi ca ,tion condition than in the

l ow justif1c~ti~ condition. '~!selt:-s~leCtion o{ a~~ectsprevent.e d r~~OO\ al'l~ iqmt~~ of high M~~hia;V~l1~ru,., into

c hea t 'i n g and non-cheating cond.i~ion.a • . As -the ~ant and

Rokeach .ieaults wo~ld i nd i c at e . , It La meceea ary to ha veS'ID.j~C~B _i ? a ~~9~ dissonance si~uation t_o get .a ,v~lue ch~ngefThe~~Q~! . a p~~r.ure i~ necessary. that W~ll e.~~e al~ ' .

; hi9~, MaChia~e:l, lia'n~ to t he cheating or non..:c~~tin~condition

that had been rand~Y assigned to them . This-was

that no individual reward could 00 ' qiven an d i n s t e ad . thepr omised reward moneymust!go 't o' the er.eee tre~8Ury . since

the auth~rs . do not, ~eport :dir~Ctiy . ~hat ,the lOr~' ~f ~wardwas caused by ch~atiJ.lg . JI.lany of the children m~y not have ,

~en a"waie that cheati~g had _c:anc elled ' ,t he , r~ward . ,

; Anot~er ~PoSSibility , - "n~_ t ha d ~h~ pre~~n~,- st"d~:,i~~s~i~at~s.i~ ' 't~at' ;' t~e ,t~~~~ 'grq~pS,\~onta7ned ~ ~ ·d~_~~;~Po·rt..i~~~l "number of. high Macha . , '; - Des pit~' all 'of th~s~ ~s's ~:ble' con-'.,f;~d1~~ .v~~la~~~~ ; ·:' _~he·. :', ~oU;~~ ~, gr·~~_~'i.~:· ,\~.h~ .~ ..~,,~~+~.~,~a~t· ",change "'!n ~he ' -va-lue Honesty "---.. ~iven t he' proper_~ntrol!! , '

- 10-

dir~tly controls or ~nlpulates those sub jects . tha't .are

eo be classified' as ':cbea t e rs " . , As t Ud; by .rebee and ;5 i ga ll (19 71) ' Buggee~ed th~ ·1)a~.i·s fO~ 'sueh. ._ a p~edure ....,

~nes a~~ ' SigaU revleo:, a ', '~eries of ~r~.:i.cieB in which.' . . ' . : . . ; . , " " . .. . . - ., . '

. subjects are CQnviriced .t h a t a ,: ph y s .:!.ol o g i cal :me a s ur e., of t h e

· · rt:;!~E2~~:::~:st::r:t;EF:~~::;::!th.l

- , :."

~ ; '. _J

••..

.,.11- ), . I , , '.' ., " , ' ,. ' .'. mell.5ure;'pO.sit;-ive oJ:'ne,qat~,,:.e _a,f.f~;:',~. ~l!! ' lIubjectl!l we~t:

th,e~ as~ed .:t~ consid~~~ ,~.',~~~ ~el:t o~ t~~C~.~d , .to, ,~., "s~~- ' ~" " ; bei,~g "r ead by t h e e xpe r imenter. , ' ~, stat~,~ts . had

~f~~lf~~~trli~S%~~i~t~~~·~;··

• aft~r ,,8....f ew ~adj~lItm~ntB I: had " .been , ,ma(1.~, , , a~,d , ,a ., , .~,e~Ond ': ~~.at;erilen,t,·'a&;i~is~e~ed . J~nes ' a'n~ :sig~il :~'ta~e th~t : " : ,: : ' . , ' '. ~ , "

, . It s h ould be not e d thatl thi s procf!du~e us e d '.-~a~~' . ~Ub ject ' B acquie8e~~t ' : ,r;es~~~e as e,,:,i~e~,ee ; ,

: ··· ~:e:·~:~:: :::~:::ce:e::f::tt:t~::~~:2: r;:~i:; ·an~ ' , _tbe : ,s~j~eFt:s : ,~r~" " c~raC;te:'r~~ ~i,~~~1~ " qu~.t~ .. 1';';,":;:u~r.i~~d ' ~o, :, l~l!'7:n ' af~~t,~e :, e,xPer'irne~~:::t~at' , ::' • .

....~;~:{~ht:~t:/::~;:_~e fiCti"CU~ ' (J~n.: .?~ . -.'.....', ,~l~~, ;,S~j~ts ,:~r~,/e.ad.ilY, : ~,n~~.ce~, : ~f,: ;; ~he :: ~~~t'i~e" ls ",:

~~~~-ili~~:~~~!1. ,

\~ -.

: .. '

."Pre-raeaSUres .

. ... ' . ~'. " .

., '

, , ..

" .~ .'

I-1'3-

My attitUde ·t'"owa.r d l~galiz~t:i.ori ~"_ma.rijuaha ·'i8'Favorabl~/'-~ . ~ / •• • •; ." , . /~~ -, ./~ • • .):~: .'1..;':i~ .~ ../Unfa~~rable ?v i ews ,~re- c~~~e~ .'f~r ~~" -~~;l.i~~io~ ~roc~ure·. · The' po~it:ion 'o~ favorabUlty on the scares was rand6mly ' .chOsen t~ ~·avoid

. pa s i tiona l .-,res poild.!ng·, ....... . I I '"~~iqri. ,. . _

. AS. i n ,the Bog,art ' liJ~ af ~". Q 9'70) ~tu'dY ~ , t~~ ' ;rubjec,~ ' ~ ',~~h IV and , Ma~h , V slIrveYIiI ,~re, 's c C! ted ·a.~d: t~e · two s core a

wer e . av~r.1'~ed t~ ' gi~ .~ - ~asur~ .cr the_.8ubject~' Machi.a- !.vel1~a~ , orlEmt~ tion~ ~ ,.The Subj~~ts __ .W~8e S.CO~E!! S ~re i nth~ uwer '.t~i~d o~'t~ '.- ~amPle ~r~ ,cla~si~i~. ~s ,-h i gh ..

~c~:ia~e~Ha~~, ~ :~~_~ Bcor.i~g ,~. 't~e ' ~;;r ·.~hird·' we1:~ .. cl"assified'a s l ow Ma·chiavellians . ~rty- high ~chs a nd

,r-.' The ,s ub jects ~r~ also adminlB1:er~ a modified ·fQrnJ.of

the ~alue survey. ~like .th~ · ' ~~l Rokea~~ ~~~re . . ' I. " , ': - ' , ' , - , :

howe~r ., stilijects were, a s ked t o - al!ll!l_~gn ~...po Bitiori or r~nk

. -t o,\ .h e _l e values on'-6,'-100 -~iri~. sc~ie " allOwing '·afin~r'

, ~i.sc,riJn~na~i~·..~ Of: ~~·_ -~_~~:~~~n~hiP_--~t~en .:~a{ueB_ . , ~i~ '

, . W'; d:I :~j~:: tt:~:n:~::d~i·;~~~~;,:::.~o~_.~,air~ - :l~bel1e~: -,"Ge,D:er~l, ,~in.io,?,' ~~stidnna~re;:~ _ ' (~~.e : .

.- ~,~n1i:x': : A. ), ~ : ,,'~l~',i:~:' ~ __ "~.~~~ :.f~~:',:~~ :_~~~: '~i:-~'~~i~?~~,~t~ .an d -the ecare :us e d t o expres-s_ the sl,lbject'.s op i nion . ",',Thr ee

o~' th~ ',1t~~ , O~ \>IhiCh 't~~' · ~~j'~t' ~eld fh~ ' mos~' :.~~tj-~~· ·

;,-.:,'

-14-

Maahs were ran~ly chosen and d i vided into

e ight g~oups ee :10 !~j~ts . T1m study emp!Wed a ?x 2x2

~aC~?rial desig:i wi th t wo ..l~vel~ :0£, Mclchi avellianbm. t WQ

.1e~lS of ,just ifi c a tion ,. ani cheaterS •.. non-cheate'rs.

dr~~J ....~ . '

and read the f~lloWin9 ~ns'tructions:

' ~ ,

t

~' , '/ .

of ' exPer~n,ts '~,t are~~inq ,~6ndtic~e~, : ~J1.~Oughout cai:tack 'to~ ~'~tabiish n,O;uis ',:for',a :';:e,l atively f '

so-call~'" , ~ d~:-e~tor,"-;te,st:" ~e:I:l', ,t he ' , ' " "

G,':S ..R• .is one of '-t he mea.sures taken' by , ,t hiS ~st .

" v a r i ous emoti9nal ' s t a t e s , a re known ' t o affectthe ': r~ac~~ of ' the ':' swe~~ ' ~i~nds ~~fc;h~ "iri :tJrn .

, ', ', I ," , " , " , , : ,,"" " : ': "" ,, ' -.

affe'~,t~ ~,~e , ~l.e?~r~~~l' ~eSi,8 ,t~~~e,: ~c;~OS~,' :~~Y ' : " ~

skin. JTwo ele,ct,t:od~So IP~ac~d. ,a t ' va~i~,~ , '~8 i~ions. " 6n ' the --'J~in ,ca n' t hen ~~~Ure ihi,B , ' 9han~ in,

,r e s b t a:nce . ,' .; .. . " ', '~ ',J "' " ,", " n:e " iit~~hine :~~qr:-,You :. ~~~~Be~,te . tn

; ... example . if I Were'to wire'you ee"the machine . and

.:.. ';:~~:.: . . . . ?~.t~2iL.;j~~~-.... ' : \'~ . . - - ',- : : -1--····;·:· i.)[~

:.th;e ~~.r •. - intO . _th~_ l?~te:~ . ·~~ , .~c~ ..out. ~ ~- . : - ·...•:..~ '.~..;.:.•';••...•·.' ..~ .t.';: -:.: ,•....:..•....,..:.._~_:.:~.~~>:~:;~~:~~~~,k':~~~~~~ ·:b.~';· ...·~i;.~~~,i~ , i~)~~-~~: c _ _ .-': 8~~ecti' 'Come ~c~~u·..~e- hal1 ' ~~ ~' ll ' show you < " '- 'y' .: .• , . " . ,:.

e . tJi~·,~~u;~~~ t~18_:·ih~~~ ,:~~~~d '}~:~? ~"~ ) .:.. ' ,...>;,'~ ,.: · '

I

. -19-

'wou l d have ch eated in that ~ituation . " For t he grou ps .t h a t

were c l a ss i fied as non-cheaters . a negative read i ng s howe d

• the subje c t 's apparent rejection o f t.h e opportunity to, '

cheat , and the exper irnen t e r commented accordingly .

Post Me a s u r e : . Af t e r the p r esentation o f t he f our t h

·situatio~ . the experillienter .terminate d th e e xpe r iment.

. Bef?r~ l.~v:~n~ the e~rim~tlta'l. ' r~. the s ubject was" . a s ked to fil]... out the tltokeach Va1.ue survey und~r thefOl~i~9" -~ise t o di~Bociate it f r om tle:present study .

. ~A friend who is d~,in~e~earch as ke dif my.' ~ubjects "",?u1d £.iiI out a brie f ques tion-naire' for him."

If s ubject reported that they ~d previou~ly t i lled in the

questionnaire • .th e experime nt er s tated tha t several pe ople

_ were uBin~_th~s questi~nnaire and it~d be he lpful i f

'" ..,j 'th e y 'c omple ted it , a g ain .

After completing the questionnaire , t he subj e cts were

told that they coul d ~eive an explanation oi-the experi-. mental results by mail , a f ter cooip~etton ?£ the s t udy .

I . t~jects :ere t hen gi'f~n paymen't fO : thf\'- ~~riJnent a ndt~e s e ssion was t enni nated.

~esults

'I'o -de t ermine the eff~ctivenQss of the a bOve appclra t us ,- eigh t -s ub j ec t s, one in e~ch' C!Ondition, ~re pre-tes':ed .using

the procedure described above. - The subjects were then-: I •

ques t.ioned aoout t he procedure and t heir reacti on ec the . /'. r-"

. !I

' I " ,'.-', . ,.t '::'

~20- <"

believed inapparatua . In all cases, t he ~ubjectB that .

f act . tha machirie ha d eeee ured their r eec tioo ll accordingly .

It. Bincaial teat ( Runyon and Baber . ~967) i nd i c a t ed the

probabllit y by chance alone of all eight be lieving the

manipulation to ',be . 0 0 4 .

The ' mod i fied Roke a ch Value Surveys (prerneaeure) fo r

hi gh and low M.Ilc h iave·ll lans were s c ored a nd the s ub ject ' l!" • 1.,. r ank i ng (on a ,10 0 po i nt scal e ) of the va lue Hone s t y w~

I re co rded. ,:Means . o f . t hes e ranking's_ ra ca lcula t ed f or tho

.' l ow Macliia velll an .nd t h e" h i gh MachlaVlilll~n groupe andax e •h~ i n Tab1e L• "

.TABLE 1

High Mach iavellb.n e an d Low Machb vell iane MeanRank i ng:!! of t he Value -Hones t y·

urvey Soa red Us Lng 100 surv~re~:r::~~ingPOint -Scale '

x: High Mach! 13f LoooiMacha X High Maahs X Low Ma'chB

20 ~66 7.13 ... 3 .8"

m' •• m . 5. m · 68 m = 5.t '" 2 . 4 3* . d f • 122 t . 3.54 . · df .. 12 2

*p < . 01

. u P < . 001

Not e -- ltigher _ a n s co res ~indica te a 10'00l'er r anking p! Hone sty ;• 1

( .. - i ....

:;~.;~~;;:~::~\L·~~:~~; -·~k~~J~~l~t·i7"~!'~f"·

- 21-

" ''" .'.', .' .:,. , : ...

~ " '.'

Tab le 1 alBo s h ows II the r e s u l t s of a test comparing

these ~wo means. The. high Machi~vellians show a signifi -

c a n tly l~r me, n r a nk ing (20 .66) o f t h e valu e Hon7s ty , asocepared to 7 . 13 fo r lOW Ma ch i a ve lli a n . The.1 va lue of

2 .43 , wa s r e liabl e at the . 01 l e ve l o f probab i l i t y.

To'make comparisons ' wi t h earlier studie s , the ,va;Lu e

Surveys f0l' 'h i 9h and tOW:MaCh~avell.ianl wer~ then recordedaccording ' ~'o t 'he t ypi c:a l ,Roke ac 9 Scoring Met hod (B imp le

rank orderi:~g ·.Of 18 values) . The"Bubj~cit 's ranking of t~~vaT~~ Hones ty was then recorded an~ mean' r a nk i ng , _calcula~rd .

, Th e s e means a nd, r.esults o f a test' canparing t hese means ca n

~also be seen in .Ta b l e 1 . As wi th t h e previous scolfing

method , high Mach iavellians h ad a significantly l owe r. .

ranking' of the va l ue Honesty , with a mean of 6. 9 compa red

t o 3.8 f or the low Mdchiaveilians. Once again . the :- v alue

for this compari son ( 3•.54) was s t ;;,t i s tically depend.ab~e at

the •00 1 l~yel of probabili ~Y'

A three factor , 2x2x2, ANOVA was also used to canpare t h e

premeaeure rankingB of the vai~e, HO:nestv , (on 'the· lO d-~int

. scale ), f or all 80 . s tlbje c t s i n t h e eight conditlonB. r ab l e 2

summari;z es t h e result~ of rhis an a lysis . AS expected ', only

the ! -va f ue f or the rnain effect of Ma cb i avellip i srn was .

reliable ~S.08; df.::l, 72 ; p < . 05 ) .

The pos t -measure r a nki ng ~f Honesty on the R~each. .Value Survey ,,:,as - t h en :c a l cu l a ted u s i ng the. l ob pOint

. resporise Bca le ,f o r alL80 ~ub j ects in t he eight cond~tions . :

- 22-

Pre-measure of Ranking of Hone s t y ANOVA

df

Machiave llianism (A) 95l~·1l 5 .08*

Ju8ti~icaticin (B) " 324.01 1. 71Cheat ,- Nonlre~t (e ) ./1 . 49 .61

-~AB ' 165 .3'2

xc r - 74.12

~~.1 · 66:62

214.50 1.13

S(ABC 12 188.69

"'p< .0 5

These post- rankings were the n subtract~frcm the initial

pre-measure ranking to yield a ' diffe~ence "~~ore for le a chsubject. A"'an difference' score",was"' then ca1c~ate~ foreach co ndftion. positive differenceacores i ndi c a te "an

increase in t he importance or ranking of Hone sty while:. .negative difference scores ~"~dicate a' decr~ase in "" I~rtance or ranking of Honesty , A three facto l: -2xZx2

AN.(NA was used ~o c~re t~e.se ' diff~renc:e : scores in the

eight condit ions. Taib l e 3 sum.ar l ze s t1}e l:e s ul t a of ' ~hla

'analyBis . The Machiavel lianism x j ustification "x ch~ating _.. , " -.

noncheating i~teraction '!'""as s tat 1sti cally r eliable (~~.9l:

df '", 1,721 p "C::: .05 ) . Figure 1 illustrates _t h is -i n t e r a c tion ,

'1 . I ', '

::,. ~ , '\ ,"

- 23 -

'JT1\B~ 3

. Mean Difference SCOre ANOVA

. .'

, ~i9U~e 2 8h~ mean dille'rence ~cores l~' l ow

; ~chiavelliana with the~,high '0rl~ jU3tlfi~~Jon cOndiUon.s:cmpa~ to t:he cheating "a.~ non~heating ~~ltio~, . ':',LowMa'chs in the no~~heati~ qrouPl!l. .show a , tendenCy t o r abe

t~e.ranklng ' ~f ,th~ value "ho nest y " more t han do cheatin9

c1roups . 'AIs ,?, 'l oW Ma~hl.a~llian~ in " the high juStification

,COndi,ti~ns (cheaters ,":and n~~~.heatera ) r haw a 'l a r ge r c~~nge •than ~o ' l oWMac h a ~n r espective l aw, j \1st.ifica ~ion .condit:io~ .

. I .Machiavelliani~ ( A) .,

Jus tification (8) ,. 1

' :~a,~ - , NO~~,~t , ( c: ~ >~ .,::2: 91'"

'1' ~7 5 ,",

"1:V,~ .

1BO~00

,.'57 . 80

. 80 '

, ,39 6 . 0 5:

" , 218 .05 '

4 . 0 5 ,

,. 667 . 90 .

1 36 . 0 2

df

: 1

Sou rce

*p .10

Be

"'ftp .05

AC

S/ABC

'.1 ,

"r

"' ,': .' , ,'

."-;:.•...1/ ...

-24-

- - - Low Mach Chea t.ing--- -- Low Mach Non-Chellting

I '_ ._ _. _ High MIlch Chea-tinq___ _" ~ _High Mach Non-CheaUng

' . ~' / '

r, ".."{..,' .;

. . ~ .

. i :;F"

. Fi gUre 1 . High Machiav~ilia~s and I.ow "Machi"ave~ 'l1l1ns , ~anDifference Scores a ll a -Funct.i on of ' J u stif i c at.i on.

~~~t;~t~~;n~~o~~:~et~~n:c:~~t;;~~~~ct~~~n. ,indicate a n increase in thliJ impoHance o,f t h"e

'" ~ . value Ho~e8-ty. " , . ' ,

:J

' . (

... ~'..... " ".

I- 26-

Figure 3 shows mean ~fference scores,. f or high

Machiavellian groups. wit~ the high and .l~ justificat'ton

~onditions compared to the cne a ting and non-chell,t.ing g roups .

~heat_ing Condition '

. ..;.;.--:--:----Non-eheat~ng .Con dition

- 27-

_ High Ma chi avel lia n cheate rs in the high justification

condi t ions show a mean diff ere n ce s core l~r than

',.that Of t he non-cheate r s wit h the same justif i ca tion .

High Mac h' cheat ers in t he l ow just i ficati on c on d ition

, Js now a M~her ~a.~_~.iffer~~~e, sco~e : than, ~o hi gh Mach :·non;-c 1?-eat e r s . _~~ the same' ·cond i tion.

'; 'Furtho r compa riso ns of.- the,t r e a tmerit means r elatil'l.g"to' trh~ hWo~n~~i~ '~r~ ·~ade" 'us"i~q .: ,'t~te:sts - ; :~ -ootte~ioi~

ci:npa:~is~~ ::~s d~e:~~~bed . 'bi ';~'~~~n..Ji'~71 ; ' p ~ 26~)\ .~e · '"'t reatrnE!nt means ' ot ,5 '~ l . ' arid' :7 , ~ '( ij'igh" M

i

II--

I -i

II -I

, ---High Mach

- - - :-- - - - - Low M4ch '

I~

Low '" • High

JuBt;itica_t~on for cheating

,Fi gU r e 4. High ~

-',

-29-

When the Value Surveys were ,r escor ed i n the, ·~ua.l

manner , r esults are in the s ame dire6t~on ..16 .9 f o r highs

'I e 3 .8 f o r lows) with the mean ranking being reliably

different at th~ .0 01 leV~l. ' I t ' a pPeals thit i ncreasing. .... ' " . ' -

~the r Ode to. .~OO ;_POSsibl~ positions ; as n~,t ne cessary t o

sJ:10W, ;t~: di~f~rence between, ;h~gh ana l~· .MaC~iaV;,lli,an~:.~1ng o ,f, .tbe va l ue- Honesty . , ',. " . ,

~e ' pres~~t '. '~~Jultl/ ~,~nf~ i"ni"\he hYPothe'S i~ OriginallY~et out ' ~' : .Rirrl : · ( 19 '7 ()')"~ : Hcr.oI~ver .'iRim ia'i~~ ' to f1~d" 8upPort

'f o r bis b~tli~s~s ; . ' . ' .~e:' ~e~n '~r~~ing~:~~; , 4 . d."for' '~igh Ma~h~ '

vs 3 ~6 for l OW,Mach a wer e not 'found-to ,:be statiBtica~iy

diff~rEmt·. ' ~, : ' ". , . ~ :" :, :'::'

' Rim ~ s 1(1 910}lJIs t udY ueed ',~ d1ffe~ent 'me t h ods o!.dete~i~ing h~qh and low MaCbia,~l~~'an~ , thll't IcoU1.~ a c coun tfor the stronger difference in the- present study . Rim used

'OnlY the Mach IV sC~le -e c :.id~nti~Y hia Ma:chiavelli~ns ,. :Th e "pres en t study used acoinbination of the Mach IV in'a. t he ..'

Ma.~h V'Bc al e t o determine ' MaChiav~;ii~hism. r .Sin~e the::, " , ' . ; , , ' . " , ' .~cl1. 3Y has ~E;n sh~ t o be Busceptib~e t o .Bo

- 30-

In addition, RiIn use d a different c riterion for_different~atirig 1010' ~Ch~ f~om ng.h .MaC;~ . Rim dividedMach score s a t the median la~liinq~ those above a's h i gh

' . , - ' ",, " , ". :' '' ' , . . - .... .Macha, tho s e below as l ow Mac hs . . The p resent experiment

\ ~l~ed'~ o nfy . ~h~~,~ : - B_~~~ln~' . ~~ tli~·, u~r, ~~ .A,w~~; ':t hirdS

.,:~::-l~~~;t:J::n{:d~:h:?:i~e~ pe~h~p~i p,r~r . " .'"", for , tM~C~:~;:;::.:~;;'~;:~:~:::\:tt:~::~:,;:::l~f

~he pre~a~ure . :~,~i~~ :Of ~one-~tY;~BO B\i~,z:~s.; .t~~. d i f f e r enc e - in ranking"of Honesty ' o f high · ~~ · l.a..: Ma~hia~V~1l~an5 ; _1 The: -fail?X"~ 'of , t~e ~~.~~hing F _~4i~e; t~o ,· reaC:h :a s ignif.ikan~ level i s to be expected a s :the s ub jects wen.:. :

randanly ' assigri~d t o , th~ "fow:hig~ ,-,i~achiavel~ia:ri: ~ ;'d f~ :Idw zJCh~avelli~n cotiditionB~ '. • ~ ,:

The 'hypOth~'~ ill th,J :high ~~~iia~~~'ia'~ dn th~ highj~s tificllti~ . nOll-~h.:~ti~~ · ~ond~tio~' Wo~. " .s~~~¥~cantiy .r~i~e : the j.r. ·r~rlk":i.ng . o f ; the, _v alue H(;ne~ty . · ~~d t he :'h ypot he tSi s

that' l ow ~~hia~lli~n~' 'i~ ,'~e l~~' 'j~~ ~i~ib~tion'" ~~~~,ting. ·

::::t:::e::~da::r~::;:::~;~:J';; :U;:.::::t) ,Table -1 ,S1l0 WII n o ~iqnific_a.n.t ma!.n'. effects ' for , Machi.~velli.ani8m, ··

'~u,s'tifica~i.O~ . '~~d " che~·~e~.~ , ,~: , ::no~~~a~r~ '.::..~.ve~ ".::t he· .t liree-w;sy -i nt e r a c tion of, 'the~e f~ctors · is , reliable . at ,the- .

,'.:::e::;t'pr:::~'~"a:v:h:::::::,: th~t ~r~ 'i~ ~peI

',:

· Hi9~ KaChia~.11~ in the hi~ j UBt J.tica tion .c heat ing grou~. 1._ 'Fi~e 2) do' IIJw a tend~ t~rdara.nkin9 HOnesty a.: ~ iKlr~ · ~rtant vai.ue':·~~ iridicat~ . ' , 'by --th e':me l n diff~r~nce ac~:r;e o f '5 . 1:' m9b-~hiivelU.~'ns

',~...

'" .' .

.:: v .,0 '.' - 3 2 '" : ..

;'1.' " IChr i at1 e ' a~ Ge b · (1970 1 Would pr edict .~a .t~cal

di S:'sonanee r;'-ct.ion :f~ tli1!" low ,Machlaveili~n .

.; " ,

".:~: .,":'.; .

.:. . -~~~(~~~ ,.i n. the_~~~~n.t·, ~.~~~y.' ~ , ~~h. ~Chia~ ~. ,: .

-33-

-.',

with the p~esent. situation . But, it. sh~la,be npted that

the mean difference score is in the posit.ive direction ,

This indicates ~at l1igh Machs who are faced w! th ' cheating

i n a l ow justificat>ion s i bia tion raise their' ranking of

t ?e value Honesty . There appears no reaeon to assume t hat

"t h e high Mach iavell,ian has cognition~· a~inet h one s t y in

any aitha'tion: 'I'h.e s~~les . (Mac h IV and Mach v) are not

. orient.ed towards exc~~ive di~honesty. but moretow:"rda a

r,elati.ve .or 'c~pa-r",~i.ve ~shonesty. The h:\.gh Machiavellian

• "d oe s not " ~nd?~se a ~tat~nt s~Yi~g ho nesty i s not my

'1 ~ricy , but. ' a st~tement that S~yS hOnes'ty is not, a lways the'be :; t .polic y.. It' i s qu ite , lik.~,ly th~t h igh Machi'avell iilns

l·view . themae1v~s .as just ,.as -bo n.es t or ' d i s honest ee cc h e res t .

of. the Jorich I~ . fac:~ . Chd,s ~ie a~ Gei~ cite seve ral. studies 't hit sh~w h i gh MachHlVe'tlians do not c h ea t more

of~e~ th~Jl l ow M~chiave~li:~na : Overall, h i gh Machs and 'lowMachs'~wer~ found -i n past'studies t.o cheat at about t he aame.. " , ', " .. - . .rate . - Boga rt e t a1. (1 9(0). found that high and 10 .... Machs

~~ea:ed.ldi~.~e~en~~ial.1Y " ...;dt~ _ hig~ M~C~~ cheating more of t e nfn t~ 1Qw dis,soIlilnce \h~g~ j us t ifi c a;-i o n-l condi.tion tha n

in' the high dissonance (low j us ti:li i c a t i o n l condition: If

: th~ high ~ach sees h~eh· ~S "being ~o more d ishonest than\' . , - ' . , " - ' .. ' "

the r e s t. ·of tqe worl~. it may be y ery threatening f o r the

high Mach to ~ucidenl~ $ee,; h~s?1f cheat 'dhEln there is: very

l~ttl~ :',to .ga in· f~.~ that ~9t.~on. " I n 'orde r to ," s ave face-

or en sure J1~8e'lf ~hat ~e is not a 'dishc;me s t. ,per s on ', the

- 34-

h igh MaC? c ou l d raise h i ; va lue' ,f o r ho nesty, as ';leen in th~

present s t udy . Res-ults from fhe B,ogart study tend t~" ,, ' :

support the a bove . Bogart found t~a~ high Machs "who

ch~ated i n the ~gl1 dissonance cono;l:ition witho.!lt e,.e::terna l

j ustif .i c a tion c l a im eq to be more rathe r than less moral

afterwards . ( ~lth~ugh not si~ifii:antly ~ore rno~al):"

(Christie 'and Geis , p , 246 ) :, ; I .' , ',

Before accepting Christie .e nd ueae ' sug~stlonB' o f , no

'( diBson~nce for ht9~ , ~~chiavel~,fa':lB i , ~J .~~la S'e(ml ~r,th.wh d.Le t o 'PUrsue ',the results p resented , above . Quite

poeeibly , "wi th a ,few . c~gee i n .the p r esent ' ~rocedure ,

. h i gh ¥achs Would show .~, stronger d issonance ~educti9n ; ::

In t he pr esen t stud y it is . dif f icui t t o det ermine wh at. , " .

impact , the justification levels had on t h e subjects -. This

i s very~rtant as .i t appea'rs "Obviou~ t~at ~ustification

I is c r itlcal i n, t~e hi~h Mach's ' d ec i sion to che~t ~, Th~. Mach i a vell i an i s m x j u s tific a t ion int e rac t:i on s h oWn in

; : . · 1

Figure 4 ' i s :r;ei~~l,e at the . 10 l~

: ': ... ...,. ' .. .

-35-

used is a condition in which there i s no j us t i f i catio n

for cheating. p lac,ing f1gh Machs in such" a ccondition a nd

having them ch e a t u~ing the bogus pipelin e method could

produce mor e ·d i a.s ona n c e reduction .

In summary , two points seem apparen~ fr~ the present

study conce~ing the Machiavellian and his value fo r

honeaty . (1 ) In . i nitial r a nk i ng o f the value ' Honesty. h i gh

Mach i avel,lians. ap pe a r to place

r anki ng ·o f that va lue . Al though this ' is what one 'might

predict , g~ven t h e t h e or e t ical orientation o f ' the h i gh

Mach. it is ·i n t e r e s t i ng that several studies mentioned

previously 'indicate that the high Mach iioes no t 'ch e a t more

of t e n than t he l ow MaclJ, i n an eXperilne fltal setting . (2 )

Jus tificat i on and ch~ating behdv ior interact with

Machiavellianism 'ec affe~t the subject I B r a nk i n g o f t he

va l u e Honesty., Al though a signi f icant Machiavellianism x. .justification x cheater - non- cheater interact i on 'wa s

f ound, it was diffic ult to de~ine the e epecee o f t h i s

i nte r a ot i on . Some tre~ds in the data were discussed:

II .( l ) ";W Machs. apPear tc rsact as expect.~.sh?Wing a ten~ency tow ar:d 'a t yP iqa l

cd issonance reacti9n :

(2 ) High Machs show a tendencr . to shift

:the i r ranking of Honesty in a positive

direction after . creating ....ith lew

j ust i f i cat i on for cheat ' n g :

I /

- 36-

(3 ) Hi gh Macha show a tende ncy t o shift

the.ir ranking o f Honesty in a pos itive

direction -a f t e r non-chea.Ung wi th

high juatifica.tion for cheating .

M ~rJI08.t o f th~:'l'IIt~ea cited ea~l~er·. it appe a rsthat the h i gh Mach provides the uncertainty' in the a r e a of

Machiave lli an -s t ud ies .. Unfortuna~ly a f ter reading. "" .Chr istie and Gets on e tenda 1:0 s ee the "l ow Mach, de e-pH.e, .his eeauncu 'mor als . as sor:ewhat of a mundane expe.rimen:ta1Ilu?j.e'ct.,

. 'In conclusion , there a re a few criti~al ' comments that

should ~ conSidered • . The prob lem of proper poat; measures

SeeI!IS. espeCially relev~nt i n dill aona nce stu d iell . It i s

. un tortWla t e but quite pos~ible that s.ubjec t s i nvolved. indbao nance r e s ea rch wi l l r educe dissonance through a number

· o f meanS o ther than that intended U . e • • III deaiqnated

p::ls t measure) . I n r etrolllpect, it mi c;ht h ave been more

adv i sable to i nclude the Mach s~ale8 " al~9 with Rokeach. .Val ue Surveys as poet eeaeuree 0 As discussed e a r l i e r . when

' de a lin g ·wi th l\i~ . Ma.Chi4ve~li~ one needs to' cons ide r more

than jus't the issue ·o f "hOne s t y . " Bogart e t d . ' ( 19 70J have _

shown " the Mach ac a l e s can be used as poet mea s ure,,: o f

attituqechangs"o ~8 Machiav~l1ianism WitS "4 ~~~ factor iA ~, the s t udy . i t ~ld have ~en he~pful tq see ~ the J~ri~8

" I .' _ ,conditio~s affe~,t~ the subject 's post tes t i ng ~Ch ".~coree;o

Alaoaa Bogart and other8 have used t h e Mach score s a s a. ' .

"

. -37-

post measure of . attitu"de change , direct comparison Would

have been more applicable.

Another possible avenue, of dissonance r e duc : i on in th~·present study shdU ld be df.acueeed , It wa,s vital' in the

" ,present study that, the s\¢lject ~ convinced . tha t ' t~e

apparatu~ could: me'as~re' his iriru:~r feelings ~ c e e c e f c oe ,

~ pre-t.est~n? indicated t:J;at ' the eic;Jh:t subjects' tested. ~ere / '

thoroughlyconvinced· the.t· the J:;lIachine could a nd did

". , , ~rform as, Cl~~d~ :'~in~ the ' e~rimerital · ~ha~e of ~he ·/liiudy , . ali 80 eUbjec.ts accepted . t he . final deCision of tne

. ', '- . ' ". . '., " . . ' ,machine without' question or denying itwas .e true 're~c.t:i.o~.

Given the aesi90 of the ~.tudy, i t was lmpoJ"sible. ' to

administer a ·pos t measure quee cdcnne Lre Cloncerninq the.

Subjeo~'s reacti~n to the app~ratus ' . IflBUC~ a , qu e s .t i on .:o..,__naire were admi nistered before the value survey (post f'fmeas~re l it ~~~ht serve as an: avenue for dissona~ce

" I" ""reduction. Administ ratl.on .of such a questionnaire after

" "

the val'U~ survey wa s al;so~"impoBsibr.e as it was necessary"

to announce termination of the exPer~nt bef~re adminis-

tering the value survey. :..The va lue survey was , adm,inlf1tered

under t he •~l!Ie of be longing to ~ane resei'!:rch, a fried of

the experimenter was conducti ng . Al s o , extensive queation1.ng

about' th~ . appar~tul!l m~y have ar?used the subjects I sus~icions')

about :. the procedure. As most of the subjects were f rOOl tb e

• same ' c·l~15a es, ~il!l could ~~e bad dis·~stiouB ·r e s u i t a .on ·t he . :, experb.ent I S l;r edib ili ty~ I t seem~· safe to ' assume f~~ the

- 38-

pre';'te8t~q and 't he s ubjects' : re~ction8 'du r i ng testing

tfuat the manipulation was successful : However . - fu~ .

r e s ea rch "should be de8iqned to provide .mOr e infonnatio n. .o n the reaetio~ of t he Macbii!:vellia~ during tes ting• .

Given. the ~lippery na t ure".of the .high Mac:h. mor e

i nformation~d be: he lpfui · ~n i nt e rpre t ing t he data .

I t appear~ that; "I n "d ; sign i n9 II :e t udy t Q teat.

MaChi:velliana~' on e: mus~ : not ~ inexJ:d~nc.ed .1n . th~ :

"';'ays o~ gU~l~;; deceit a nd man·~~ati~n l. .

/

-39-

Bogart, K. : Geia, F. : Levy , M. and zimbardo , p.. "No

Dis sonance f or Machiavellians." I n R. Christie

. . . .' ,,Fe~ tinger~~ L.. A.. Tlie;'ry~ of cognitive Dissonance. stanford :

. .Homan~ , R. and Rokeac::p , M. "Value for -Hon~sty and Cheating

Behavior' ." ~e~sonaHty , .1970 ~ :! , -1 53- 162 . "

.....'..

rr::. . ApPe ndix A , ..u .§b~RAL OPIN ION 9UBSTI~~IRE

'1. My .attitude -toward cigarette .amoking i .6 .•. . , .~ . . My at titude ·toward legaiizing ' m~ri juana is . ' .3.

': ' ~he ~.~w:..:.. ,.:, ,:'. . ;'/ . " '. " .' ': ". ..' flo S ; -. Rel i gion ' is. a . ~ece8B a.rir' · part 'of . my e verY

. 6 . " " :My at t;'i~UCl~ :-t~a%-d p'~~i!l~itai 8e~ J' .'.; .,., ,

M.U.N ~

9.1 G:oVenlment ..apon sored unemplo~nt benefit s ar e ~

.' 10 . , My reac~lon~ t o:. t~e r~8ultB of ~he l ast provlnd.al

e l ec t.i on -t- . ~

001_Cover002_Inside Cover003_Blank Page004_Blank Page005_Page Notice006_Title Page007_Acknowledgements008_Abstract009_Table of Contents010_List of Tables011_List of Figures012_Introduction013_Page 2014_Page 3015_Page 4016_Page 5017_Page 6018_Page 7019_Page 8020_Page 9021_Page 10022_Page 11023_Method024_Page 13025_Page 14026_Page 15027_Page 16028_Page 17029_Page 18030_Page 19031_Page 20032_Page 21033_Page 22034_Page 23035_Page 24036_Page 25037_Page 26038_Discussion039_Page 28040_Page 29041_Page 30042_Page 31043_Page 32044_Page 33045_Page 34046_Page 35047_Page 36048_Page 37049_Page 38050_References051_Appendix A052_Blank Page053_Blank Page054_Inside Back Cover055_Back Cover